Obama on climate change: How about these anti-science conspiracy theorists in Congress, amirite?

posted at 4:41 pm on June 26, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

This week, the White House officially marked the one-year anniversary of the introduction of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan (and his accompanying grandiloquence, ugh), proudly touting the ostensible progress that the Obama administration has made on combating climate change even without Congress’s eager cooperation. It was the same tack Obama took in a speech to the ready-to-donate League of Conservation Voters last night — but there’s nothing like a little shared derision for Republican-obstructionism-cum-climate-change-”denialism” to really get the party started, via Politico:

President Barack Obama is letting his inner Don Rickles run free, mocking climate deniers as the crowd who used to think the moon was made out of cheese or spineless dopes who can’t or won’t listen to science even though the science is all overwhelmingly pointing in one direction. Their heads are in the sand. They are members of the Flat Earth Society.

For the White House it’s about getting the liberal base excited for the midterms. It’s a confidence that climate change has shifted in voters’ minds. It’s a broader play against congressional Republicans as obstructionists.

And for Obama, it’s a good time. Wednesday night, Obama ripped into his opponents in front of a League of Conservation Voters crowd so friendly that some were pumping their arms in the air as he spoke.

“It’s pretty rare that you encounter people who say that the problem of carbon pollution is not a problem,” Obama said. “In most communities and workplaces, they may not know how big a problem it is, they may not know exactly how it works, they may doubt they can do something about it. Generally they don’t just say, ‘No I don’t believe anything scientists say.’ Except, where?” he said, waiting for the more than accommodating crowd to call back, “Congress!” …

“In Congress,” he said. “Folks will tell you climate change is hoax or a fad or a plot. A liberal plot.”

You get the idea; it was a speech all about riling up the wealthy members of the eco-radical progressive base in the audience. With not much in the way of liberal legislation likely to get through Congress throughout the rest of his tenure, climate change is the second-term issue on which President Obama will be trying to hang his legacy-hat, particularly with executive-branch top-down regulations like the major rules for existing power plants that the EPA recently released. He did go on to warn that, “If we’re blithe about saying, ‘This is the crisis of our time,’ but we don’t acknowledge these legitimate concerns [about rising electricity prices] — we’ve got to shape our strategies to address the very real and legitimate concerns of working families” — but that would perhaps hit home a little more sincerely if his administration was actually doing more to address the very real and legitimate concerns of working families and if his major power-plant regulations were going to provide a little more bang for their buck. His administration isn’t, and the regulations won’t; and in the meantime, the progressive tendency to lump everyone who doesn’t automatically take at face value every dire prediction and subsequent big-government policy recommendation the green lobby can come up with into the category of “flat-earth, knuckle-dragging, conspiratorial deniers” is just counterproductive to their own cause.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Coming from the side that Obama comes from that doesn’t know when human life begins let’s just say….I don’t trust their scientific prowess. Heck Obama couldn’t even figure out that born babies are human.

The “politifact” article is biased garbage, of course they are defending the doomsaying warmists. What does politifact know about climate science anyhow?

The evidence shows that the Chicken Little Brigade has fudged the temperature record, but one thing that can’t be fudged, and that in fact belies the supposed temperature record, is the record high and low temperatures. As I said in my comment above, the world record for the hottest day was set in 1913, while the world record for the coldest day was set in 1983. That doesn’t make sense after a century of alleged runaway warming. Still, maybe that’s a fluke.

That does not make any sense at all if we had in fact been going through a century of runaway warming. Also, if you still want to claim that all that is probably just a fluke, here’s more: every possible hemisphere on earth, the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere, and the Eastern Hemisphere set their records for the coldest day AFTER their records for the hottest day. Source. The climate “data” is bogus. Period.

“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Envinronmental Studies, UCSB
“Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ attention… this is the only way to assure any political action and [get] more federal financing.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist

And they did in fact offer up bs “scary scenarios”…

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
“[in twenty years (2008)] the West Side Highway [and thus much of Manhattan] will be under water.” -James Hansen, 1988, NASA
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
None of this ever happened folks. None of it. Not. Even. Close.

Actually a minor error, no, a MAJOR error, in my comment above where I quote out: Well, this can’t be just a fluke: 6 out of the 7 continents set their record for the hottest day after their records the coldest day. It was supposed to be that coldest day record was set after the hottest day record. So I hope you will go back and check my comment out, keeping in mind the essential correction.

“In Congress,” he said. “Folks will tell you climate change is hoax or a fad or a plot. A liberal plot.”

…What really scares me into owning several firearms, are the people who *don’t* believe that statement.

Why is it leftists can ridicule Christians endlessly, for belief in something leftists simplistically boil down to ‘ridiculously intangible’, but they themselves would thoughtlessly take or lay down human life, for their belief in a scientifically, demonstrably false premise?

Maybe one of our AGW promoters can sell us on the 97% of scientist bullshite. Your side lies all the time…you guys did trick the data. All you have to do is look it up…but you don’t want to.

CW on June 26, 2014 at 9:28 PM

You mean the TOTALLY scientific poll that was sent to 1500 hand-picked Global Warming sympathizers that had a response of somewhere around 40% and then had a return response or 93% or 97% rate of consensus? You mean that one?

(Hmmm .. let’s do some math … 40% of 1500 is … ohhh this is so hard … concentrating … I got it! … 600 respondents. Okay … continuing with the rest of the problem … rounding up for the sake of benefit of the doubt … 97% of 600 is … where’s my $400 calculator from 1978 .. I’m such a knuckle-dragging cretin I don’t have anything newer … the answer is 582 scientists out the reported 50,000 or so who actually wasted their time enough to wag their tongues “Yes we affirm man-made global warming will snuff out humanity!”)

What you see on sites like this are on the fringe of denialist opinions. I think if you just talk with folks at work or at church, you will see that very few pretend to have it all figured out (such as the ones in this thread who declare that it’s all just a “hoax”).

And the denialists probably all don’t deep-down feel the way they express themselves. Denialism is just a stage of grief. Denialism is a self-defense mechanism to deal with things that are too horrible to fully contemplate. And I can understand denialism, because, I think, we all are denialists about something.

Strange, but when I was low info on this, trusting Al Gore and co to have gone into the facts etc, I believed it. Now I have gone into the science, I think it’s close to fraud. The truth is there is no proof, zilch, nada. And what evidence there is points in the other direction. If you follow the money, then of course scientists have to “agree” Otherwise they lose their jobs. I know of 5 documented cases off the top of my head. So yeah Obama, a pox on those low info dumba**es. I.e. you.

But since you ignore every bit of data that refutes you I have no intention of wasting my time listening to your “Nyuhuh!”r routine again.

Tlaloc on June 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Poor Tlaloc.

He managed to accidentally link a survey that he thought supported his faith but actually reinforced the 5 million previously uninsured number he despises so much. From his link:

…nearly six in ten (57 percent) of those with Exchange coverage were uninsured prior to purchasing their current plan…. (71 percent) say that before buying their current plan they had been uninsured for two years or more

71% of 57% of 8 million enrollees?

3.24 million previously uninsured.

Add that to Politifact’s best-case Medicaid number of 2.36M, and you get 5.6 million.

Obamacare only covered 5 million 5.6 million previously uninsured people.

Per Tlaloc.

Thanks for the link, Tlaloc. That’s hilarious.

rogerb on June 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM

I really look forward to the Obamacare threads now that Tlaloc has provided us with current numbers.

Consensus says that there is strong evidence of a huge source of heat about 93 million miles away, and that it is almost as if our planet revolves around it in about 365 days, and the earth has an inclination of about 23 degrees!!!!

Well he did get his last sentence right, it is a hoax.
Ever wonder why “global warming” was dropped and climate change used? Climates are always changing over time, it’s a truism.
But whatever the name the scam goes on, the insiders continue to profit. Sun reflectors, giant windmills, whatever, just line up for the federal cash.
And keep talking gibberish to the fools.

That said, when Rush says the climate issue is “fake” because it uses computer models.. he is being ignorant.

antisense on June 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I’m no computer genius, but even I know that when you put garbage into a computer, garbage comes right back out again. If computers were always right, the weather forcasters would be far more accurate than they are.

Ye know so much herein posting that Al Gore is correct and when Obama follows along he to is correct, go hence to said Watts blog and get those fools there in line. Once your convert them come back with the proof.

As of now the 97% deal is pure crap too, the orginal tree ring fraud was low dope, the hockey stick was man made via computer input, the sun cycles seem to be in line somewhat (with what little time man has known of sun cycles) with the warm,cool, cold, freezing that goes on.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

If the models don’t model reality – how does this fit the scientific method?

It doesn’t – which is why this really has nothing to do with science and everything to do with a political agenda and vision.

It strikes me as not nary a soul really believes that this community organizer really gives one hoot about the environment or climate. This is but the left’s long planned and paid-for weapon to destroy America’s sovereignty–thus, he ludicrously makes silly statements about it.

Since global warming idiots are often anti-capitalist, perhaps they might stand up and offer a bill that says that no one can make a profit chasing carbon mitigation or carbon credits. Profit is almost as evil as carbon emissions themselves. You KNOW the only reason that guy that made the money in petroleum is bribing democrats with campaign funds to support greener energy must be because he has invested in the Al Gore fund, or he is creating his own.

He surely is now set up to reap the profits of charging people to be more green. Everything GREEN costs more money.

How tainted if a profit should be made in the name of green anything! Green projects can only be pure if everyone, even the CEO gets minimum wage.

If this garbage were true, WHY does the phrase “the science is settled” keep getting spewed by the AGW fraudsters on the left, while I’ve never yet heard that phrase from an AGW “denier”.

I suppose projection must be the left’s major talent….

dentarthurdent on June 27, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Don’t exactly know what you mean by “this garbage”, but I suspect that you place yourself into the denialist camp on this issue.

As for “the science is settled”, you must be quoting Al Gore (who isn’t even close to being a scientist).

Science is not something that is “settled”. It is a process of attempting to approximate an understanding of how things operate in the natural world. There is not anything that is “settled” in scientific endeavors.

So, the issue with AGW is not to “settle” something, and I don’t know why denialists such as you are so hung up on that notion of “settling” something.

Also, you seem to think that AGW is an issue that the “left” is promoting. AGW is an apolitical phenomenon. Science, in its truest form, is apolitical. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the issue of AGW if you see it as a tension between the “right” and the “left”.

So, now I ask you: How are you so certain that humans are not affecting the environment in terms of warming the average temperatures of the planet and thereby effecting changes in the climates? Please provide your understanding of how that notion is all “garbage”.

If the models don’t model reality – how does this fit the scientific method?

Athos on June 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM

The models as a group, have done a pretty good job at predicting the trend of warming that we are seeing across the globe. Thus far, they have been shown to be correct at the low end of the predictive range. And, despite all the denialist blather about the lack of warming over – I believe the rumor is up to 19 years now – warming continues unabated (see the WMO report of 2012).

I work with models all the time in engineering. There are no “correct” models about anything. There are only models that are useful to some degree. Models are always being refined as new data emerges and as new understandings of how the physical world operates are generated. So, if you don’t trust climate models, then you don’t trust models in general, including those that predict how aircraft force their ways through the atmosphere (do you fly?), or how car tires wear (do you drive?) or how pharmaceuticals are metabolized by the body (do you take medicine?) or how mutual funds are managed (do you have a retirement account?) etc. So, do you live in a cave somewhere, isolated from all of the modern amenities because you don’t trust scientific models?

The models haven’t worked at all – their predictive hit rate is zero. Garbage in – garbage out. There is a reason Mann won’t show his original data he used to get the hockey stick. He is being countersued to allow for cross deposition on his “data”. He is a fraud.

The science is settled is a warmist mantra. I know the climate changes all the time. But not in the way the warmists claim. We have very little understanding about climate. On a mjor geological level climate is most impacted by the continental formations on the planet. Ice ages came when north and south america joined and changed the dramatically changed the ocean currents. In fact, geologically – we are headed to another ice age. Its time.

When the major CLOUD study at CERN cannot show a positive correlation even between CO2 and the warmist position, the warmist position is nothing more than religious dogma – with less empirical evidence than that of Christianity.

Face it – you are way out of your element. Ignorance is a terrible thing to share.

Refer to my previous comments. Models aren’t designed or expected to make exact predictions. But climate modeling in general has been quite useful and somewhat predictive (far more predictive than what denialists have been saying for the last twenty years).

the major CLOUD study at CERN cannot show a positive correlation even between CO2 and the warmist position

It didn’t show a positive correlation because the study wasn’t about carbon dioxide. It was about cosmic rays and cloud formation through nucleation processes.

we are headed to another ice age

We’ve never left the last one. How could we be “going into” another one?